On 18/09/2020 16:59, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-09-18 at 16:24 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>>
>> 1 PR which is in a state of "its unclear what we do with this":
>> [WIP] Rename some XXX_ex() related methods to XXX_with_libctx()
>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12701
>> With no
On Fri, 2020-09-18 at 16:24 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> 1 PR which is in a state of "its unclear what we do with this":
> [WIP] Rename some XXX_ex() related methods to XXX_with_libctx()
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12701
> With no agreement on a naming convention its unclear if
As of right now we have 13 PRs with the beta1 milestone against them.
Of these there are 4 which really need our focused attention. These are
2 PRs which are in a state of "written but still in review":
WIP: Implement Provider side SM2 Asymmetric Cipher support
I've found what's going wrong there, and I agree that it needs to be
fixed ASAP, although I don't view it per se as a beta 1 blocker.
Either way, a fix is coming up.
Cheers,
Richard
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:21:50 +0200,
Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
>
>
> Dear Matt,
>
> I think #12891 is a
On 18/09/2020 08:26, Richard Levitte wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:52 +0200,
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> I do not think the milestone should include nice-to-have items.
>
> Another view is that beta 1 is feature freeze. If those nice to have
> items are characterized as new features, then it
On Fri, 2020-09-18 at 09:26 +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:57:52 +0200,
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > I do not think the milestone should include nice-to-have items.
>
> Another view is that beta 1 is feature freeze. If those nice to have
> items are characterized as new
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 18:49:19 +0200,
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:48:18PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> > So - this leads me to the question - what is the milestone for? Does it
> > means these things *must* go in before we can release beta 1? Or does it
> > mean we would
